{"id":31517,"date":"1975-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-08-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975"},"modified":"2018-05-27T09:18:13","modified_gmt":"2018-05-27T03:48:13","slug":"bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975","title":{"rendered":"Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Jagannath Pandurang & Others on 12 August, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Jagannath Pandurang & Others on 12 August, 1975<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 2356, \t\t 1972 SCR (3) 929<\/div>\n
Author: C Vaidyialingam<\/div>\n
Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBOMBAY GAS CO. LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJAGANNATH PANDURANG & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/08\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nBENCH:\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nDUA, I.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR 2356\t\t  1972 SCR  (3) 929\n 1972 SCC  (2) 119\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1974 SC1495\t (11)\n\n\nACT:\n     Industrial Disputes  Act 1947  Section 10-Award  of  an\nIndustrial Tribunal,  if binds\tworkman coming to Work under\nthe employer after the award.\n     Labour. Law-Principles  of res  judicata, if  apply  to\nindustrial disputes.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  118  respondents  are\t workmen  of  the  appellant\ncompany`working in  different departments  of the  company's\nworks. Respondents 1 to 14 are Syphon Pumpers. They filed 14\napplications before  the Additional  Authority under s 15 of\nthe Payment  of Wages  Act claiming  overtime wages  for the\nperiod February\t 1957 to January 1958. Respondents 15  8 are\nMains workers.\tThey filed  66 applications  before the same\nauthority claiming  overtime wages  for tho  period December\n1956 to\t November 1957.\t Respondents  81  to  118  filed  38\napplications before  the Third Additional Authority claiming\nwages for  weekly of  days.  They  belonged  to\t the  Mains,\nHeating Appliances  and Fitting\t Department 'they had joined\nthe appellant company after 1948. Before the Authority under\nPayment of  Wages Act  the company  contended that  all\t the\nclaims were barred under an award of the Industrial Tribunal\nin Ref.\t No. 54\t of 1949,  which was  made on  30-3-1950 and\npublished on  11-5-1950. The  Tribunal held  that workers of\nServices  and\tDistrict  fittings   departments  and  lamp-\nrepairers who  used to\twork till 1948 on all the seven days\nof the\tweek, would  be entitled  to be paid weekly day off.\nThe Authority  held that  (1)  the  claims  of\tthe  Booster\nAttendants for\twages for  overtime work and weekly off days\nwere covered  by the  award, (2)  the claims  of  Applicants\nother than Booster Attendants were not covered by the award,\nand (3)\t the Bombay  Shops and\tEstablishments Act  was\t not\napplicable  to\tthem,  and  dismissed  the  applications  of\nrespondents I to 80. The applications made by respondents 81\nto 113\twere  allowed  by  the\tThird  Additional  Authority\nholding that the award was no bar to those applications, and\nthat the  provisions of\t the Bombay Shops and Establishments\nAct were  applicable. The  Court of  Small  Causes,  Bombay,\nwhich dealt  with the  appeals filed  by the workmen and the\ncompany held  that the claims of workers for overtime. wages\nand wages  for weekly  off days were barred by the award. It\nalso held  that\t the  appellant\t company  was  a  commercial\nestablishment within  The meaning  of that  terms under\t the\nBombay Shops and Establishments Act. All the workmen filed a\nwrit petition challenging the judgment of the Court of Small\nCauses. The    High  Court  held  that\tthe  claims  of\t the\nrespondents were  not barred  by the  award and remanded the\napplications of\t respondents I\tto 80 to the Authority under\nthe Payment  of Wages Act for ascertaining and decreeing the\namount. As regards respondents 81 to 118 the judgment of the\nThird Additional  Authority under  the Payment\tof Wages Act\nwas restored.  This appeal  is preferred on the basis of the\nspecial leave granted by the Supreme Court.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: (1)\tAn award  of an\t Industrial  Tribunal  in  a\nreference under\t section is  of the  Industrial Disputes Act\nbinds not  only persons who were the workmen of the employer\nat the time the award was made but also workmen who came tc.\nwork under  the employer  after the  award. It\twould not be\ncorrect. therefore,  to hold  that they would be entitled to\nbe paid\t separately for\t the weekly  day  off.\tIt  must  be\npresumed that  their scales  of pay were the same as for the\nworkmen who  were working  before 1948\talso. There  was  no\naverment to the contrary. They cannot, therefore, be allowed\nan extra  benefit which\t would not  be available to the same\ncategory of  workmen who  were working\tunder  the  employer\nsince before 194&. [295B-C].\n     (ii) The  reasoning of  the High Court that the workmen\nare entitled  to be  paid for  the days off either under the\naward or under section 18(3) of the Bom-\n292\nbay Shops  and Establishments  Act, is not correct. The High\nCourt seems to A have assumed wrongly that there was a scale\nof wages for weekly off days under the award [295C-D]\n     (iii)  The\t specific  case\t of  workers  in  the  Mains\nDepartment has\tbeen dealt with and rejected; so also in the\ncase of\t coke supply  coolies and  motor drivers The Workmen\nconcerned here\tbeing all  workman of  the Mains department,\nthe question  of their\tbeing paid  overtime wages under the\nprovisions of the award does not arise. [297A-B]\n     (iv) The  doctrine of  res judicata  is a wholesome one\nwhich is  applicable not  merely to  matters governed by the\nprovisions of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure\tbut  to\t all\nlitigations. lt\t proceeds on the principle that there should\nbe  no\t unnecessary  litigation  and  whatever\t claims\t and\ndefences are  open to  parties should  all be put forward at\nthe same time provided no confusion is likely to arise by so\nputting forward all such claims. [298D]\n     Devilal Modi  v. Sales  Tax officer  [1965] 1  SCR\t 686\nrelied on\n     Bombay Gas\t Co. v.\t Shridhar Bhau\tA.I.R. 1961  SC 1196\nreferred to.\n     (v) The  workmen could  and ought\tto have\t raised\t the\nquestion that  even if\tthey  were  not\t entitled  to  claim\novertime wages\tat the\tsame  rate  as\tpayable\t to  workers\ngoverned by  the Factories Act, they should at least be paid\nthe same  rates as  the payable\t to persons  governed by the\nBombay Shops and Establishments Act. The workers neither put\nforward the  contention\t that  they  were  entitled  to\t the\nbenefit of  the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act nor even\nthat on\t considerations similar\t to those  applicable to the\npersons governed  by the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act\nthey should also be paid overtime wages under the provisions\nof that Act. [298A-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 358 of
\n1973<\/span>
\n     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  order
\ndated the 6th February, 1967 of the High Court of Judicature
\nat Bombay in  Special Civil Application No. 1967 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
     M. C.  Bhandare,  P.  H.  Parekh,\tS.  Bhandare,  Manju
\nJaitley, for  Respondents Nos.\t1-4, 12,  15″ 17, 24, 27-30,
\n35, 36,\t 47, 49,  54 63, 75, 80, 82, 86, 87, 89, 90, 94, 96-\n<\/p>\n
107.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-This appeal arises out of the judgment
\nof the\tBombay High  Court in  Special Civil Application No.
\n1967 of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
     The  118  respondents  are\t workmen  of  the  appellant
\ncompany working\t in different  departments of  the company’s
\nworks. Respondent  I to 14 are Syphon Pumpers. They filed 14
\napplications before  the Additional Authority under s. 15 of
\nthe Payment  of Wages  Act claiming  overtime wages  for the
\nperiod February\t 1957 to  January 1958\tRespondents 15 to 80
\nare Mains  workers. They  filed 66  applications before\t the
\nsame  authority\t claiming  overtime  wages  for\t the  period
\nDecember 1956  to November 1957. Respondents 81 to 118 filed
\n38  applications   before  the\tThird  Additional  Authority
\nclaiming wages\tfor weekly  off days.  They belonged  to the
\nMains, Heating\tAppliances and Fitting Departments. They had
\njoined the  appellant company 1 after 1948. The relevance of
\nthe reference  to their having become workers of the company
\nafter 1948  will become clear when we deal with the facts of
\nthis case later.\n<\/p>\n
293<\/span><\/p>\n
     Before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act the
\ncompany contended  that all  the claims were barred under an
\naward of  the Industrial  Tribunal in  Ref. No.\t 54 of 1949,
\nwhich was  made on 30-3-1950 and published on 11-5-1950. The
\nAuthority held that (1) the claims of the Booster Attendants
\nfor wages for overtime work and weekly off days were covered
\nby the award, (2) the clams of applicants other than Booster
\nAttendants were not covered by the award, and (3) the Bombay
\nShops &\t Establishments Act  was not applicable to them, and
\ndismissed the  applications of\trespondents  1\tto  80.\t The
\napplications made  by respondents  81 to 113 were allowed by
\nthe Third Additional Authority holding that the award was no
\nbar to\tthose applications  and that  the provisions  of the
\nBombay Shops & Establishments Act were applicable.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals were  filed by respondents 1 to 88 in the Court
\nof Small  Causes, Bombay.  The appellant  company  filed  an
\nappeal\tagainst\t  the  judgment\t  in  the   applications  of
\nrespondents 81\tto 118. The Court of Small Causes dealt with
\nthe appeals filed by the workmen as well as the appeal filed
\nby the company and by a common judgment held that the claims
\nof workers  for overtime wages and wages for weekly off days
\nwere barred by the award. The workmen appeals were therefore
\ndismissed and  the company’s  appeal was  allowed.  It\twas.
\nhowever, held  that the\t appellant company  was a commercial
\nestablishment within  the meaning  of that  term  under\t the
\nBombay Shops & Establishments Act.\n<\/p>\n
     All the  workmen filed  a writ  petition, out  of which
\nthis appeal arises, challenging the judgment of the Court of
\nSmall Causes.  The. High  Court held  that the claims of the
\nrespondents were  not barred  by the  award and remanded the
\napplications of\t respondents 1\tto 80 to the Authority under
\nthe Payment  of Wages Act for ascertaining and decreeing the
\nAmount. As regards respondents 81 to 118 the judgment of the
\nThird Additional  Authority under  the Payment\tof Wages Act
\nwas restored.\n<\/p>\n
     As the  award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay in Ref
\nNo. 54\tof 1949\t is the most important factor that has to be
\ntaken into  account in\tconsidering this  appeal it would be
\nproper to  refer to  portions of  that award which relate to
\nthis appeal.  About 23\tdemands covering variety of subjects
\nwere referred to the Tribunal. The demands out of which this
\nappeal arises  were No.\t 11 and\t 12 dealt with in paragraphs
\n113 to 126 of the award. Demand No. 11 was as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  (a) Workers should get a paid weekly off.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b)  Workers\tof   Mains,  Services  and  District
\n\t       fittings departments  and lamp-repairers, who
\n\t       have been adversely affected in the matter of
\n\t       their earnings  on account of closing down of
\n\t       the  overtime   and  Sunday  work  should  be
\n\t       compensated for\tthe loss suffered by them. .
\n\t       compensation being  the amount  lost by\tthem
\n\t       since e scheme was introduced.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
294<\/span><\/p>\n
Demand No 12 was as follows A
\n\t  All work  extending beyond  the scheduled hours of
\n     work should  be paid for at overtime rate (i.e., double
\n     the rate of wages).”\n<\/p>\n
In discussing  demand No.  11 the  Tribunal pointed out that
\nwhat the workers were asking for was paid weekly day off for
\nthose workers  who were\t actually getting  a weekly day off,
\nthough without pay. It appears that in this company prior to
\n1946 most  of the  workers used\t  to  work for all the seven
\ndays of the week. By about August 1946, however, weekly days
\noff were enforced upon the major section of the workmen. The
\ncompany and  the union\thad entered  into an agreement about
\nJune 1946  as regards  wage scales  of various categories of
\nworkers. The Tribunal, therefore, assumed that in respect of
\nmost of\t the daily  rated workers  the wages  must have been
\nfixed on the basis of what their monthly income would be for
\n26 working  days In  the cases\tof the\tclasses\t of  workers
\nspecifically mentioned\tin demand 11(b) a weekly day off was
\nenforced some  time in\tthe year  1949, while in the case of
\nlamp repairers\tthe weekly  day off  was enforced  from\t 1st
\nApril 1949.  Those categories of workers, therefore, used to
\n. work for all the 7 days of the week and earn wages for all
\nthe days  till\ta  short  time\tbefore\tthe  reference.\t The
\nTribunal, therefore,  proceeded on  the basis  that in their
\ncase it\t cannot be said that daily rates of wages were fixed
\nwith reference\tto a  month of 26 working days and therefore
\nwith the  introduction of  the weekly  day off\tthe wages of
\nthese workers  were reduced,  and that\tthe concession\tof a
\nweekly off  would be  a very doubtful benefit if as a result
\nthe monthly  income of\tthese E, workers was to go down. The
\nTribunal granted  the demand  under demand  No.\t 11  (b)  in
\nrespect of workers who had been working on Sundays also till
\n1948.\n<\/p>\n
     Some doubts having arisen in respect of this portion of
\nthe award  a reference\twas made  to the Tribunal under rule
\n20A  of\t  the  Industrial   Disputes  (Bombay)\t Rules\t for
\nclarification. The  doubt raised was whether the company was
\nbound to  give a  paid weekly  day off to the workers of the
\nMains Department  and to  pay them compensation for the loss
\nsuffered by  them. It  appears that  the company gave a paid
\nweekly day  off to  all personal  mentioned in demand No. 11
\nexcept workers of the Mains on the ground that they were not
\npersons who  were till\t1948 required to work on Sundays and
\nin  respect   of  whom\ta  weekly  day\toff  was  introduced
\nthereafter. The\t Tribunal pointed  out that  the paid weekly
\nday off\t was given  only to people who till recently used to
\nwork on\t all the  seven days  of the  week and\tthat it\t was
\nunfortunate that  the company  had not at the hearing of the
\nmain adjudication  specifically drawn  attention to the fact
\nthat the  workers  of  the  Mains  were\t not  till  recently
\nrequired to  work for  all the\tseven days  of the week. The
\nTribunal, however, held that it was clearly a condition laid
\ndown for the grant of this benefit that the person concerned
\nmust be\t one who  till 1948  was required to work on Sundays
\nand in\trespect of  whom a  weekly day\toff  was  introduced
\nthereafter.\n<\/p>\n
295<\/span><\/p>\n
     The importance  of the  year 1948,\t to  which  we\thave
\nreferred m  earlier part  of the  judgment, would now become
\napparent. Respondents  81 to  118 who\tjoined\tthe  company
\nafter 1948  contended that  the award  did not bind them. In
\nthis they  are manifestly  wrong. An  award of an Industrial
\nTribunal in  a reference  under section 10 of the industrial
\nDisputes Act binds not only persons who were the  workmen of
\nthe employer at the time the award was made but also workmen
\nwho came  to work  under the  employer after  the award.  it
\nwould not  be correct, therefore, to hold that they would be
\nentitled to  be paid  separately for  the weekly day off. It
\nmust be\t presumed that\ttheir scales of pay were the same as
\nfor the workmen who were working before 1948 also. There was
\nno averment  to the  contrary. They  cannot,  therefore,  be
\nallowed an extra benefit which would not be available to the
\nsame category of workmen who were working under the employer
\nsince before 1948.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court seems  to have  been of  the impression
\nthat these workmen were entitled to be paid for the days off
\neither under  the award or under s 18(3) of the Bombay Shops
\nand Establishments Act. It seems to have assumed  that there
\nwas a  scale of\t wages for  weekly off days under the award.
\nThat this  is an  obvious mistake  would be  apparent from a
\nreading of  paragraphs 114  and 115  of\t the  award  to\t the
\nfollowing effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “114. It  must be  remembered that  the  wages  of
\n     daily rated workers are ordinarily fixed with reference
\n     to what their monthly income would be on the basis of a
\n     month consisting  of 26  working days. This undoubtedly
\n     secures to\t them\tthe benefit of holidays with pay. ..
\n     The  company   and\t the  union  have  entered  into  an
\n     agreement about  June 1946\t as regards  wage scales  of
\n     various categories\t of workers  that in respect of most
\n     of the  daily rated  workers the  wages must  have been
\n     fixed on  the basis  of what their monthly income would
\n     be for 26 working days.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  115. Some  difference must  however be made in the
\n     case of  the classes  of workers specifically mentioned
\n     in demand\t11(b)… Until\trecently these categories of
\n     workers used to work for all the 7 days of the week and
\n     earn wages\t for all  the days.  Certainly it  cannot be
\n     said in their case that their daily rates of wages were
\n     fixed with reference to a month of 26 working days. . .
\n     Time demand in respect of workers of the Mains Services
\n     and District  Fittings Departments\t and  lamp-repairers
\n     and others\t who were  till l  948 required\t to work  on
\n     Sundays and  in respect  of whom  a weekly\t day of\t was
\n     introduced\t  thereafter   without\t any   corresponding
\n     increase in their wages is granted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The matter  would be  further clear when paragraph 14 of the
\naward is read, wherein the Tribunal has observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “While therefore,  I approve\tof  Rs.\t 30  as\t the
\n     minimum wage  for male  mazdoors (coolies)\t which is at
\n     present given
\n296<\/span>
\n     to the  workers in\t this  Company,\t I  think  both\t the
\n     maximum and the increments provided are rather low when
\n     compared to what is now-a-days awarded even in the case
\n     of some  of the  smaller concerns\tin  the\t engineering
\n     industry. I,  therefore, award to the unskilled workers
\n     (male coolies) a wage-scale of Rs. 1-2-6 to Rs. 1-10-6.
\n     If they  are monthly paid their monthly wages should be
\n     arrived at by multiplying the daily wages by 26.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The total  wages for 26 days at Rs. 1-2-6 a day is Rs. 30\/-.
\nit is  not said\t that the categories of workers mentioned in
\ndemand No.  11(b), who\twere covered  by the award, are paid
\nseparately for\tthe days off. it is not contended that their
\nwage scales  have not  been  refixed  in  pursuance  of\t the
\ndirection given\t in the\t award, except of course in the case
\nof persons  who even before 1948 were not working on Sundays
\nalso Nor  is it\t alleged that pre 1948 and post,l948 workers
\narc paid  differently.. The  reasoning\tof  the\t High  Court
\ncannot, therefore,  be supported and the company is entitled
\nto succeed on this part of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     Coming now\t to the\t question of  overtime,\t the  demand
\nbefore the Tribunal was that overtime rates should be double
\nthe rate  of wages.  That demand was rejected in the general
\nform. The  demand seems\t to have been made on the analogy of
\nthe provisions\tof the\tFactories Act.\tThe Tribunal pointed
\nout that  there\t would\tbe  no\tjustification  in  making  a
\ndistinction between workers covered by the Factories Act and
\nworkers not  covered by\t that Act  in  respect\tof  overtime
\npayment if  the workers\t were doing the same or similar work
\nbut that  the same cannot be applied in respect of all types
\nof  work   particularly\t where\t the  work  was\t of  a\tvery
\nintermittent nature,  and that\twhere the nature of the work
\nitself was such that. regular overtime becomes necessary the
\ndeterrent element  must not enter in determining the rate of
\novertime. The  union pointed out several specific categories
\nin  respect  of\t whom  injustice  was  done.  One  of  these
\ninstances was  that of booster attendants and their case was
\nspecifically dealt  with and  provided for. The grievance of
\nthe workers  of the Mains department was that they were made
\nto work\t till 1.30  p.m. On  Saturdays while factory workers
\nwere let off at 1 p.m. and that 47 1\/2 hours a week has bean
\na very\tlong-standing  privilege  of  the  workmen  of\tthis
\ncompany and  that if  they are\trequired to work for half an
\nhour more on Saturdays the should be paid overtime at double
\nthe  rate.  After  discussing  this  question  the  Tribunal
\nspecifically came  to the  conclusion that  no directions in
\nthat respect  were necessary. We cannot therefore agree with
\nthe respondents\t that the  sentences at the end of paragraph
\n126 to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “I however  recommend\t that where overtime work is
\n     given to  workers not covered by the Factories Act, the
\n     rate should  at least  be the  single basic  wage\tplus
\n     dearness\tallowance.   I do not however desire to give
\n     any general  directions without  knowing the  nature of
\n     the work.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
297<\/span><\/p>\n
would cover  these cases. Demand No. 12 is in respect of all
\nworkers of  the company. The specific case of workers in the
\nMains department  has been  dealt with and rejected; so also
\nin the\tcase of\t coke supply  coolies and motor drivers. The
\nworkmen concerned  here\t being\tall  workmen  of  the  Mains
\ndepartment, the\t question of their being paid overtime wages
\nunder the provisions of the award does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
     The question  however remains whether they are entitled
\nto be  paid overtime  wages under the provisions of s. 12(3)
\nof the\tBombay Shops  & Establishments\tAct. That Act was in
\nforce when  the award  under consideration  was given. It is
\nnot correct to say that the workers are entitled to overtime
\npayment by  virtue of  an amendment made to the Act in 1970.
\nThe 1970  amendment had\t nothing to  do with  the  right  of
\npayment of  overtime wages.  The contention on behalf of the
\ncompany is  that the  right to\tovertime wages\tbased on any
\nground what  soever should he deemed to have been dealt with
\nand rejected  by the Tribunal which gave the award in 1 950.
\nThough the demand for overtime wages was in general terms it
\ncould have been or it ought to have been supported either as
\none of\tthe items  of industrial  dispute or as flowing from
\nout of\tthe provisions\tof the Factories Act or flowing from
\nthe provisions\tof the\tBombay Shops and Establishments Act.
\nIt was the duty of the party making the demand, who tried to
\njustify the  demand,  to  support  it  on  any\tone  of\t the
\nalternative basis.  They could not have been ignorant of the
\nprovisions of  the  Bombay  Shops    &\tEstablishments\tAct.
\n(Incidentally, though  in this\tcase it\t seems to  have been
\nconceded on  behalf of\tthe company  that  the\tworkers\t are
\ngoverned by  the Bombay\t Shops &  Establishments Act,  it is
\ncontended on  behalf of\t the. company  that  the  concession
\nshould be  deemed to  have been made only for the purpose of
\nthis case and not for all purposes). It is further contender
\nthat the  demand for  overtime were  under the provisions of
\nthe Bombay  Shops &  Establishments Act should\tbe deemed to
\nbe  barred   on\t principles   analogous\t to   those  of\t the
\nrejudicata. Reliance  is placed\t upon the  decision of\tthis
\nCourt in  Bombay Gas  Co. v.  Shridhar Bhau(1).\t But in that
\ncase the  question whether  the workmen\t should get overtime
\nwages in  the same  way\t as  the  workmen  governed  by\t the
\nFactories Act  had been\t considered in\tthe reference  which
\nresulted in the award of 1953 and before the Tribunal it was
\nconceded by  the workmen  that they were not governed by the
\nFactories Act  and the\tclaim for the same overtime wages as
\nthose Payable  to workers  under the Factories Act was based
\non the\tground that  there was no reason for any distinction
\nbetween the  two sets  of workmen.  It was.  therefore, held
\nthat ‘so  long as the award remains in force it must be held
\nthat these workmen are not governed by the Factories Act and
\nare not\t entitled to  the benefits  thereof’. In the present
\ncase also  the question\t under the  Factories Act  had\tbeen
\nconsidered but not the question whether they are entitled to
\novertime
\n298<\/span>
\nwages  under   the  provisions\t of  the   Bombay  Shops   &
\nEstablishments Act.  We consider  that the workmen could and
\nought to have raised the question that even if they were not
\nentitled to claim overtime wages at the same rate as payable
\nto workers  governed by\t the Factories\tAct, they  should at
\nleast be  paid the  same rate  as those\t payable to  persons
\ngoverned by  the Bombay\t Shops\t&  Establishments  Act.\t The
\nworkers neither\t put forward  the contention  that they were
\nentitled to the benefit of the Bombay Shops & Establishments
\nAct  nor  even\tthat  on  considerations  similar  to  those
\napplicable to  the persons  governed by\t the Bombay  Shops &
\nEstablishments Act  they should\t also be paid overtime wages
\nunder the provisions of that Act. Incidentally it shows that
\nthe question as to whether the Bombay Shops & Establishments
\nAct is\tapplicable to  those workmen has been raised for the
\nfirst time  in\t these\t proceedings. The  doctrine   of res
\njudicata is  a wholesome  one which is applicable not merely
\nto matters  governed by\t the provisions of the Code of Civil
\nProcedure  but\tto  all\t litigations.  It  proceeds  on\t the
\nprinciple that there should be no unnecessary litigation and
\nwhatever claims\t and defences are open to parties should all
\nbe put\tforward it  the same  time provided  so confusion is
\nlikely to  arise by  so putting\t forward all such claims. It
\nwas observed  by this  Court in\t Devilal Modi  v. Sales\t Tax
\nOfficer<\/a>:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The general\tprinciple underlying the doctrine of
\n     res judicata  is ultimately  based on considerations of
\n     public policy.  One important  consideration of  public
\n     policy is\tthat the  decisions pronounced\tby courts of
\n     competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are
\n     modified or  reversed by appellate authorities; and the
\n     other principle  is that  no one should be made to face
\n     the same  kind of litigation twice . over, because such
\n     a process\twould be  contrary to considerations of fair
\n     play and  justice, vide: Daryao and Others v. The State
\n     of U.P  & Others<\/a>  v The State of U.P & Others [1962 (1)
\n     SCR 574
\nWe   are therefore of opinion that the\tquestion of overtime
\nwages should  be deemed to have been dealt with and disposed
\nof by  the Tribunal  on whatever  the basis of the claim for
\novertime wages may be.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The disputes between this company and its workers quite
\noften come   to\t this Court.  The case\tin Bombay  Gas Co. v
\nShridhar Bhau (supra) is one such. The other cases are found
\nin Bombay  Gas Co.  Ltd v.  Gopal Bhiva<\/a>\t (2) and  Ramlanshan
\nJageshwar v. Bombay Gas Co. (3)
\n299<\/span>
\nIf the\tworkers are  dissatisfied with\tany of\tthe items in
\nrespect of which their claim has been rejected it is open to
\nthem to\t raise a  fresh industrial  dispute. The  award\t has
\nstood the  test of  time for 25 years a very rare occurrence
\nindeed these days.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result the\t appeal is  allowed. The judgment of
\nthe High  Court is  set\t aside\twith  the  result  that\t the
\npetitions of  all the  workers stand  dismissed. The special
\nleave granted  in this\tcase was  subject to  the conditions
\nthat the  appellant would pay the costs of the appeal to the
\nrespondents in\tany event. The appellant will therefore bear
\nits own costs and  pay the costs of the respondents
\nV.M.K.\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal allowed
\n300<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Jagannath Pandurang & Others on 12 August, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 2356, 1972 SCR (3) 929 Author: C Vaidyialingam Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A. PETITIONER: BOMBAY GAS CO. LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: JAGANNATH PANDURANG & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/08\/1975 BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. DUA, I.D. CITATION: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Jagannath Pandurang & Others on 12 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Jagannath Pandurang & Others on 12 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1975-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-27T03:48:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Jagannath Pandurang & Others on 12 August, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-27T03:48:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975\"},\"wordCount\":3359,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975\",\"name\":\"Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Jagannath Pandurang & Others on 12 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-08-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-27T03:48:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Jagannath Pandurang & Others on 12 August, 1975\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Jagannath Pandurang & Others on 12 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Jagannath Pandurang & Others on 12 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-27T03:48:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Jagannath Pandurang & Others on 12 August, 1975","datePublished":"1975-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-27T03:48:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975"},"wordCount":3359,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975","name":"Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Jagannath Pandurang & Others on 12 August, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-08-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-27T03:48:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bombay-gas-co-ltd-vs-jagannath-pandurang-others-on-12-august-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bombay Gas Co. Ltd vs Jagannath Pandurang & Others on 12 August, 1975"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31517","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=31517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}